National Republican., 1887-01-12
Interstate Commerce.

s"Sh lhtHcnec lnteIestb ds luey VIII Ue Wneu
they cast their votes upon this measure.
1t is matter to be greatly regretted
that subject Of such magnitude should be
presented to Congress in manner that
Will beyond doubt cause some of the mem
bers, who fear popular clamor AMI cover
at the outcry of the demagogue, TO vote
against their honest convictions.
II may be a misfortune to the country
that the question at issue has not been
made political one, upon which the two
great parties Of the country could have
aligned themselves in opposition so that
the wcaklings on either side might have
been sheltered by party lines. But 1t is
not political, as Republican senator
champions the bill in the Senate ani
Democratic representative In the House,
while in the Senate debate members OF each
party have spoken for and against the bill
The NATIONAL REPUBLICAN has not hesi-
tated 70 express its opinion Of this inter-
state commerce bill as It came from the
conference committee, the bantling bearing
upon its body all the bad features Of its
demogoglc progenitors In the House, who
transformed the fair offspring of the Senate
into brat as hideous as was the Caliban
begotten of the foul witch Sycorax.
When the debate in the Senate first began
the NATIONAL REPUBLICAN said the anti.
pooling and "short haul" clauses were
wrong. Some of the ablest senators upon
either side of the chamber have sus.
tained this view, and one, Senator Stanford,
nf oil q, 4 t,t
great credit, has shown that the bill Is
clearly violative Of the constitution, n fact
which the NATIONAL REPUBLICAN asserted
last Monday.
Senators Platt, lToar, Morgan, and
Aldrich have most conclusively shown In
their speeches and in the running debate
that the Senate champions of the bill do
not themselves understand what the "short
haul" clause means, or what its effect will
be upon the commerce Of the country.
They are "bllnd leaders,n and we have the
highest authority for saying that those who
follow blind leaders fall into the ditch and
in this instance the ditch will be the rain OF
the people who have freight to transport
long distances.
most entirely to the exposition of the vio.
lation by the bill of the rights of property
which exist In the owners of the railroads
that are affected by the proposed legis-
lation. Ofcourse every seven by nine Or
gan OF the people who champion this
measure and the champions themselves
will answer the arguments of Senator stan
ford by shouting in all the tones of the
gamut, "lle is millionaire aud the presi-
dent of a railroad,n and they do well to
conllne themselves to this line of defense,
for his arguments are unanswerable,
Senator Stanford first shows how and why
railroads are organized and how they are
built. lie says:
They have no exclusive privileges
The s citation is as natural as It is for Que
man to call in his ntishbors to help him raise
his barr, or to roll saw log, or to do any bust.
ness not inconsistent with the rights o: others.
The state gives, by virtue of the incorporation
laws, othns to the incorporation. Whatever
of capital or labor that is contributed to them
is entirely private
The ownership of the labor and capital pro-
vided is private; as much so as the ban Ier's
ownership of his money, he farmers owner
ship of his farm, the team er's ownership of
his team, and so on. But some will
say the right OF way was given. In re-
gard to that hink there Ia much mlsappre-
hension. Those who desire to build a railroad
of course, must in some manner obtain the
right of way on which to build It, They ap.
peal to the state on the ground that the pro-
posed investment is Of highly beneficial
character to the public. The state can only
exercise the right OF eminent d)ma!n for .he
benefit OF the public. The state could
not take private property for the
benefit of A, B. c, D. L, F, and others.
"COntrOl Is The cssepcc Ct OtcRcrdlip."
Now, If the investment Is legitimate If It's ma
ture is so highly beneficial that the state C IN
do, to aid its construction, what 1t could not do
for the establishment of factory or any other
legitimate buslne,s-whereln is the reason for
the interference with the values and the con-
troll of this property? No monopoly Is given
to IT, it interferes with no rights previously ex.
istlng, and is never used except when 1t offers
advantages TO the shipper or traveller superior
to those existing before. lit Is monopoly 1t
Is only heneiicent one chelpening and facili-
tating travel and commerce. 81 Ii the
state or If Congress impairs the value Of this
property, why should no. compensation be
made to the owners, and, before putting into
operation law that will affect values, ought
not compensation TO be made as is done when
the government exercises its right of eminent
domain and condemns the property OF A that
he road may be built which the company pays
for? BY reduction of income producing
qualities tho value Of the very right of way
which the railroad company has paid for Is
Gilt tcted.
lfc ts trli Lib, 10. 4 I.
well to consider before they allow them
selves to be dragooued by the causeless
clamor into voting for measure such as
that under consideration.
Senator Stanford next discusses the effect
of the 'short haul" clause, showing why
prices are relatively higher for short dis.
taIces, and he does this in plain, practical
business way that is absolutely convincing,
closing that portion Of his remarks as fol-
lows:
The long haul at cheap competing rates Is
really beneficial to the short haul at non.com-
p6tinG rates. It tmay be hat neither alone would
maintain the road. If understand this bill
correctly, under 1t the long lines OF railroad
Easing through different states will have to
give up one or the other. II wW be prdcticaHya a
regulation QfJniGh WithiR he boundaries 0fd R1te
GndmolmG a barter Qfhe boundary Of a state u
NE free tdHsmi86iOa Of commerce.
We italicise the latter portion OF this sem
tence, because the idea contained should be
considered by the lawyers Of the Senate
who pride themselves upon knowledge OF
constitutional law. There is no doubt Of
the right of Congress "to regulate com.
merce between the states,n the power to
DO sois conferred In direct language neither
can there be any doubt as to Its not having
the power to prohibit commerce between
the states, and this, practical railroad
man like Senator Stanford says, will be
one OF the consequences of this proposed
legislation.